Articles Posted in Unfair Competition

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Indie Game Studios, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, d/b/a Stronghold Games LLC of Florida (“Stronghold”), filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Plan B Games, Inc., a Canadian corporation, and Plan B Games Europe GMBH, a German Company of Hamburg Germany, (collectively “Plan B”) infringed its rights to the Great Western Trail Board Game. The complaint alleges jurisdiction is proper due to Plan B’s presence and activities at the 2018 GenCon convention in Indianapolis, Indiana along with other sales within the District. Stronghold is seeking damages, cost of the action, attorneys’ fees, and all other relief the court may find just and proper.

BlogPhotoStronghold claims it contracted with a German company, eggertspiele GmbH & Co. KG (“eggertspiele”), in 2016 regarding a soon-to be released game to be marketed under the trademark “Great Western Trail.” The complaint alleges Stronghold provided feedback to eggertspiele regarding the English version of the game prior to its finalization and that Stronghold obtained exclusive rights to sell the board game in the English language throughout Canada and the United States. Stronghold claims the term of the agreement was from August 3, 2016 through December 31, 2018, with future successive one-year extensions, which could be cancelled by 3-month written notice.

 

The complaint alleges that the Great Western Trail name and its distinctive lettering was inherently distinctive as a board game trademark. Stronghold claims because it promoted and sold the Stronghold version of the game throughout the United States, Stronghold became the common law owner of the Great Western Trail Marks (“GWT Marks”) for board games in the United States. Stronghold further claims that because its “Stronghold Games ‘Castle’ logo” was also placed on the game box, the game was associated with Stronghold. According to the complaint, Stronghold expended a significant amount of time, money, and effort to promote and market its Great Western Trail game throughout the United States and Canada.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, JLC-Tech LLC (“JLC”) of Pembroke, Massachusetts, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Edge Systems Group LLC d/b/a Electra Display (“Edge Systems”) of Indianapolis, Indiana, infringed its intellectual property rights regarding its T-BAR LED™ product. JLC is seeking injunctive relief, actual and statutory damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses.

Pursuant to the complaint, JLC was founded in 2010 to develop revolutionary LED lighting fixtures. JLC claims the T-BAR LED™ is its flagship product and is designed to be used in suspended grid ceilings. The T-BAR LED™ is further claimed to be able to be used as a building element, essentially replacing a standard cross tee, as well as providing lighting. JLC claims the product JLC-BlogPhoto-222x300can be placed within a ceiling with just a snap and the T-BAR LED ™ is possible due to JLC’s invention of a high-performance heat dissipation system. The “T-Bar for Suspended Ceiling with Heath Dissipation System for LED Lighting” is claimed in United States Patent No. 8,177,385 (the “‘385 Patent”).

JLC claims it commissioned photographs of its T-BAR LED™ product for use on its website and physical brochures for advertising and marketing purposes. On July 18, 2018, the U.S. Copyright Office registered JLC’s work entitled “March 2014 T-BAR LED (Linear Lighting) Brochure” under Registration Number VA 2-137-216. JLC’s work entitled “October 2015 T-BAR LED (Linear Lighting) Brochure” was also registered with the U.S. Copyright Office on July 18, 2018 and given the Registration Number VA 2-137-165. The complaint alleges JLC owns all right title and interest in both the March and October brochures, collectively the “JLC Protected Works”.

Continue reading

By

Terre Haute, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Baskin-Robbins Franchising LLC, and BR IP Holder LLC (collectively “Baskin-Robbins”), both Delaware limited liability companies, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Big Scoops Inc. and David M. Glasgow, Jr., both of Terre Haute, Indiana breached their Franchise Agreement with Baskin-Robbins by failing to pay required fees. By continuing to operate, Defendants are infringing Baskin-Robbins’ trade dress and numerous registered trademarks.

logo2Baskin-Robbins Franchising is in the business of franchising independent businesses and people to operate Baskin-Robbins shops in the United States. The “Baskin-Robbins” trade name, trademark, and service mark are owned by BR IP Holder along with other related marks. Since October 14, 2015, Big Scoops has been the owner and operator of a Baskin-Robbins shop located in Terre Haute, Indiana pursuant to a Franchise Agreement with Baskin-Robbins. David M. Glasgow, Jr. personally guaranteed the obligations of Big Scoops under the Franchise Agreement.

Pursuant to its Franchise Agreement, Big Scoops was granted a license to use the trademarks, trade names, and trade dress of Baskin-Robbins, but only in the manner specified in the Franchise Agreement. The fees due to Baskin-Robbins from Big Scoops under the Franchise Agreement included a franchise fee equal to 5.9% of gross sales of the business, an advertising fee equal to 5.0% of gross sales of the business, late fees, interest, and costs on unpaid monies due under the Franchise Agreement, and all sums owing and any damages, interest, costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys’ fees, incurred as a result of Big Scoops’ defaults. Under the Franchise Agreement, Big Scoops agreed that nonpayment of any of the required fees would be a default, that failure to pay within seven days after receiving written notice would be a continued default, and that receiving three notices of default within a twelve-month period would result in Baskin Robbins having the right to terminate the Franchise Agreement.

Plaintiffs sent Big Scoop three separate notices that it was in default of the Franchise Agreement for nonpayment on June 19, 2018, October 9, 2018, and December 7, 2018. As a result of these defaults and failure to cure after the December 7, 2018 notice, Baskin-Robbins sent Big Scoop a Notice of Termination with respect to the franchised business on February 12, 2019. Since receiving the Notice of Termination, Defendants have continued to operate the Baskin-Robbins shop and have used the Baskin-Robbins marks without authorization. Baskin-Robbins is claiming breach of contract, trademark infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1114, unfair competition pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a), and trade dress infringement pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1125.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Baby Merlin Company of Uwchland, Pennsylvania originally filed suit in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania alleging that Defendants, CribCulture, LLC of Indianapolis,BlogPhoto-300x78 Indiana and Isaiah Blackburn of Westfield, Indiana infringed its rights in the United States Trademark Registration Nos. 4,271,544, 3,486,179, and 5,006,620 (the “Registered Marks”) for marks including the MAGIC SLEEPSUIT. Since then, the case has been transferred to the Southern District of Indiana. Plaintiff is seeking punitive and monetary damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs.

Baby Merlin’s founder conceived of or invented the MAGIC SLEEPSUIT® (the “Sleepsuit”), a swaddle-transition-sleep-product, in 2002. The Sleepsuit helps babies from three months to nine months sleep better by keeping them cozy and secure while transitioning from a swaddle to traditional sleep clothing. A mother, also a pediatric physical therapist, designed and created the Sleepsuit at issue in this case for her own children. After success with her own babies, the Baby Merlin Company was created, and it began selling the Sleepsuit in 2008.

Plaintiff claims that in 2017, Defendants copied key features of the Sleepsuit and introduced a competing product while unlawfully using the Registered Marks or marks similar to the Registered Marks. In one example of misuse, Defendants used “Baby Merlin Sleep Suit” in a blog post on their website that included a link to Baby Merlin’s website. In another example of confusingly similar uses, Defendants uses the word “SLEEPSUIT” on their packaging using a larger font for that word than any other word on the package. Further, Baby Merlin claims Defendants have used a variety of false and misleading statements about their product and Baby Merlin’s products in their advertising.

Continue reading

By

South Bend, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Jacob J. Dell, Individually, & d/b/a Magic in the Sky of Boerne, Texas, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendant, Miand, Inc. of LaPorte, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration No. 5,184,437 for the mark MAGIC IN THE SKY (the Dell-BlogPhoto“Mark”). Plaintiff is seeking actual damages, enhanced damages, attorneys’ fees, prejudgment and post-judgment interest, court costs, and any other relief the court deems proper.

Plaintiff owns and operates Magic in the Sky, a pyrotechnics company for which he has used the Mark since at least as early as March 24, 2001. Dell filed a U.S. trademark application on January 22, 2016 and the trademark was granted registration on April 18, 2017. The Defendant, in connection with their fireworks display services, uses the phrase “Sky Magic Pyrotechnics” (“Infringing Mark”).

Dell first learned of the Infringing Mark when a representative of Busch Gardens in Tampa, Florida asked if he was involved with the Defendant due to their use of “Sky Magic” on the internet. He informed Defendant of their infringing use in a cease and desist letter dated June 19, 2018. After he received no response, Dell sent a second letter to Defendant on September 7, 2018. Defendant has continued using the Infringing Mark and has not responded to either cease and desist letter.

Plaintiff is claiming trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. He is further seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1116 and Defendant’s profits, actual damages, and costs of the action pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 1117 for unfair competition under the Lanham Act.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Inspire Commerce, Inc. (“Inspire”) of Boulder County, Colorado, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, enVista, LLC, enVista InteractiveInspire-BlogPhoto-300x41 Solutions, LLC d/b/a Enspire Commerce, and RetailPoint II, LLC d/b/a RetailPoint, all of  Carmel, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Number 4,344,942. Plaintiff is seeking damages, injunctive relief, and other relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Inspire provides services and products related to financial transaction processing for both storefronts and online retail stores. As early as April 24, 2008, Inspire began using its INSPIRE COMMERCE mark (the “Registered Mark”) for their financial transaction services and products. Plaintiff filed for registration with the USPTO for the Registered Mark on October 27, 2010, and was issued a Certificate of Registration for it on June 4, 2013. Inspire filed a Combined Declaration of Use and Incontestability with the USPTO on July 27, 2018. The USPTO accepted and acknowledged the Combined Declaration on August 4, 2018.

Plaintiff alleges Defendants began using their assumed name “ENSPIRE COMMERCE” on or about October 30, 2013. Defendant Interactive Solutions filed a Certificate of Assumed Business Name for Enspire Commerce on or about May 23, 2014. Inspire claims Defendants began using Enspire Commerce in connection with their system for managing transactions, processing, and payments for merchants and retailers. After April 19, 2018, the Interactive Solutions and RetailPoint social media pages were both taken down, their websites were removed, and their domain names began forwarding to an enVista website.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiffs, LeSEA, Inc., Family Broadcasting Corporation (“FBC”), and LeSEA Global Feed theblogphoto-300x67 Hungry, Inc., all three Indiana non-profit corporations, filed suit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, LeSEA Broadcasting Corporation (“LBC”), a Colorado non-profit Corporation, Lester Sumrall of Bristol, Indiana, Dr. John W. Swails III of Tulsa, Oklahoma, and Edward Wassmer, Vice President of LBC, infringed its rights in United States Registration No. 2,206,912 for “LESEA GLOBAL FEED THE HUNGRY” and United States Registration No. 2,122,820 for “LESEA GLOBAL”. Plaintiff is seeking damages, litigation expenses, reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs.

LeSEA, Inc. was founded in 1957 by Dr. Lester Frank Sumrall, now deceased, and has been a Christian, non-profit operating a variety of ministries including a bookstore and a Bible college ever since. LeSEA Global oversees food and disaster relief efforts for LeSEA, Inc. and has delivered more than $200 million of food and supplies to hungry people around the world through generous donations. FBC, formerly known as LeSEA Broadcasting, operates television and radio stations along with a 24-hour prayer line, and other religious based programs.

According to the Plaintiffs, Defendant Lester Sumrall (“Lester”) has a false belief that he is the “rightful spiritual and legal heir” of LeSEA and based upon this belief, he has continually acted in an abusive, harassing manner towards LeSEA and his family members involved in the company. As such, Lester has attempted to interfere with LeSEA’s relationships with its lenders and clients, sought injunctions against it, and filed improper leans against LeSEA. Lester issued multiple press releases, utilizing the LeSEA registered marks, spreading false claims about LeSEA stating that it was under investigation by The Office of the Indiana Attorney General and that it had been mismanaged, which could endanger the organization’s tax-exempt status. Lester has also tried to interfere with the administration of multiple family members’ estates and even a family member’s divorce due to his false beliefs.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, The Trustees of Indiana University of Bloomington, Indiana,IU-v-MidAmerica-BlogPhoto filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Mid-America Publishing, Inc., of  Spencer, Indiana and Terry R. Self of  Spencer, Indiana, infringed its rights in United States Trademark Registration Numbers 1,713,815, 4,912,172, 1,705,521, 2,868,784, 1,728,274, and 4,925,141 (collectively the “IU Marks”). The IU Marks were all instituted at different times, the earliest of which were used as early as 1975, and have been continuously used to date. Indiana University advertises and promotes the IU Marks and has spent a substantial amount of money to make the IU Marks inherently distinctive and easily recognizable. Plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief, judgment including statutory damages, and attorneys’ fees.

As of the date of filing, Mid-America Publishing, Inc. (“Mid-America”) was and had been administratively dissolved since July 15, 2010, according to the Indiana Secretary of State. Mr. Self is the sole officer and owner of Mid-America and as such directs all acts of Mid-America including producing, promoting, and selling posters, calendars, cards, and other printed materials. Previously, Mid-America began selling a poster of the Indiana University (“IU”) Men’s Basketball team with a listing of the games for their upcoming season. These posters included one or more trademarks owned by IU. Mid-America would customize these posters for local companies for them to pass out to as free promotional items.

Up until April 2012, there was an informal understanding between IU and Mid-America regarding the posters and the use of their trademarks. The parties’ informal understanding was formalized in April of 2012 when they entered into a multi-year Marketing and Sponsorship Agreement. The use of the trademarks was non-exclusive and limited, and Mid-America agreed not to use any student-athlete’s name or likeness without advance written approval from IU’s Compliance Officer. Mid-America produced and sold the posters in accordance with this Agreement up until May 2, 2016 when IU informed Mid-America that it would not continue licensing to Mid-America. The term of the Agreement was extended by one year in which Mid-America was allowed to produce the poster for the 2016-2017 season, after it received approval for the artwork from IU.

While IU photographs its student-athletes for promoting its athletic programs and events, it has a policy to prohibit any profits being made from the use of a student-athlete’s name, image, or likeness by IU or any third party. IU filed an expedited application with the United States Copyright Office to register their 2017-2018 IU Student-Athlete Photographs on October 3, 2018. The application has been registered as VA0002121460, but a Certificate of Registration had not been received by the Plaintiff as of the filing of the Complaint.

On October 9, 2017, Mr. Self on behalf of Mid-America, submitted an Application for License Agreement to IU to use the IU Marks in producing the 2017-2018 Mid-America IU Basketball Poster. The Application did not request to use any student-athlete names or likenesses, and the Trademark License Agreement provided by IU for consideration did not contain any license for the same. Mid-America executed the Trademark License Agreement on October 28, 2017. IU did not execute the agreement as it learned that Mid-America was already selling unapproved 2017-2018 IU Basketball Posters including the IU Marks, IU Student-Athlete Photographs, and the names of the student-athletes. After numerous attempts to contact Mid-America to resolve the situation, IU contacted the printers that Mid-America fraudulently induced to print the unapproved posters. The printers ceased printing the posters, agreed to destroy any they had remaining in their possession, and gave a quantity for how many they had already printed and delivered to Mid-America.

Despite all of the communication that was ignored by Mid-America for the 2017-2018 IU Basketball Poster production, Mid-America began producing and offering for sale its 2018-2019 version on August 29, 2018. Further, they are producing a Hoops Hysteria Handbook, which includes the schedule of each Division 1 college in Indiana, including IU’s. The Handbook does contain IU Student-Athlete Photographs and is offered for “free” with each Mid-America IU Basketball Poster, but advertises may pay for their advertisement to be printed on the back for $0.20 per booklet. As such, IU is claiming, trademark infringement and counterfeiting, false and deceptive labeling, unfair competition, and copyright infringement.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Heartland Consumer Products LLC and TC Heartland LLC (collectively “Heartland”), of Carmel, Indiana, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana in April of 2017 alleging that Defendants, DineEquity, Inc., Applebee’s Franchisor LLC, Applebee’s Restaurants LLC, Applebee’s Services, Inc., International House of Pancakes, LLC, IHOP Franchisor LLC, IHOP Franchising LLC, and IHOP Franchise Company, LLC all of Glendale, California; infringed its rights in some or all of United States Trademark Registration Nos.: 1544079, 3346910; 4172135, 4165028, 4301712, 4172136, 4165029,4122311, 4187229,Heartland-v-DineEquity-BlogPhoto 4202774, 4230392, 4238101, 4106164, 4664653, and 4744600 (SPLENDA IP”). In addition, at the time they filed their Complaint, HEARTLAND was the owner of the following applications for United States Trademark Registration Serial Nos. 86865337, 87012521, and 87010504, two of which are still “LIVE” trademarks. The suit settled in October 2018.

SPLENDA® is a low-calorie sweetener using sucralose that is a compound made from sugar. With the FDA approving sucralose for use in food products and food preparations in 1998, SPLENDA® was at the forefront of the market coming out in 1999 and launching in retail stores across the United States in September 2000. SPLENDA® is well-known and famous for their yellow-colored packaging which has been used continuously since the brand began using that color.

Plaintiffs claimed that the Defendants misappropriated the SPLENDA IP to deceive consumers and were actually providing consumers with a lower-quality product from China. For instance, some people working at IHOP and Applebee’s restaurants would orally affirm to customers that the yellow packets provided did in fact contain SPLENDA ® even though they did not. Plaintiffs alleged in their Complaint trademark infringement, false designation of origin, unfair competition, and trademark dilution. They were seeking preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, corrective advertising damages, Defendant’s profits, and costs among other damages. The Parties have settled outside of court as of October 2018.

Continue reading

By

Indianapolis, Indiana – Attorneys for Plaintiff, Oakley, Inc. of Foothill Ranch, California, filed suit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging that Defendants, Swami Property Sunman Inc., d/b/a Sunman BP of Sunman, Indiana, Chirag Patel, an individual, and Does 1-10 (collectively “Defendants”) infringed its rights in United States Trademarks as seen below:

pic1-1024x776

pic2-816x1024

pic3-1024x735

Plaintiff is seeking judgment against Defendants, preliminary and permanent injunctions, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and investigatory fees.

Oakley has been a successful manufacturer and retailer of eyewear since at least 1985. During that time, they have acquired many trademarks including, but not limited to those pictured above (collectively, the “Oakley Marks”). Plaintiff has utilized the Oakley Marks to distinguish their high quality products from those of others and their consumers have come to recognize their distinct marks.

Plaintiff filed this action after discovering counterfeit products bearing infringing Oakley Marks were being offered for sale and/or sold at a gas station with a convenience store operating under the name of “SUNMAN BP.” It is Oakley’s belief that the Defendants are selling and offering for sale these counterfeit products with the intent that they will be mistaken for genuine high quality Oakley eyewear even though the Defendants are not licensees of Oakley nor have they been given the authority to use the Oakley Marks.

Continue reading

Contact Information
Indiana Intellectual Property: IP Litigation, Patents, Trademarks, Copyrights
  • Seventh Circuit
  • Northern District of Indiana
  • Southern District of Indiana
Paul B. Overhauser
Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
Greenfield
740 W Green Meadows Dr #300
Greenfield, IN 46140
Phone: 317.467.9100
Fax: 866.283.8549
Indianapolis
101 W Ohio St #2000
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Phone: 317.891.1500
Fax: 866.283.8549
Copyright © 2016 – 2019, Overhauser Law Offices, LLC
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design